A Slice of Civ3 Feedback From The Official MOO3 Forum

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm sorry, I have to disagree on this one. Buying a video game isn't even close to being personal... it's not a matter of more personal or less personal... it's not personal... period.

Then insulting them wouldn't have the effect you keep complaining about now would it?

Charles.

[Ming]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Then insulting them wouldn't have the effect you keep complaining about now would it?
Charles.

Uhhh... you seem to misunderstand. It does have the exact effect that I claim it does. It makes the people who do it look foolish

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ming


Uhhh... you seem to misunderstand. It does have the exact effect that I claim it does. It makes the people who do it look foolish

No, that's not what you said though - you said that the company in question (Firaxis) would take offense to our criticism and insults. And during you're flaming war with Yin you claimed that insulting Firaxis would (basically in different wording) become somehow hurt or rejected by those offensive remarks. So if that's true, you contradicted yourself by clearly stating that business and personal are two different things entirely. In other words Firaxis with any mature standards or proffesional policy would not in any shape or form become offended by the criticism or the insults by the fans. And if you're view is just that, then I agree completely. Besides - we already know that they're un-affected because they don't answer critics and they ignore insults. And I don't think they care either way.

Charles.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Simple, I was in the middle of a debate with another member of this board and you rudely interupted by joining my debate opponent and slandering my views on the matter. Normally that would be fine, everybody does it. But you're important commentary turned out to be meaningless childish slanderous rant.

Terribly sorry for interrupting you, Charley, but this is an open discussion board. If you don't wish your posts commented, you are free to communicate via PM. Everybody except the thread starter at some point "jumped in". And in my "meaningless childish slanderous rant" I just tried to show, that there are possible other points of view. You tried to blame Firaxis for all what is going on here (oh Sancta Simplicita), and I tried to find another explanation. I am far from finding their silence good, but at least I can understand it, because the same rule exists at my work. It's obvious that you didn't yet work in a company. Meaningless childish slanderous rant? 0 points for you so far, Charley.

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
And yes I'm calling you rude, and if you want to debate with me, I have no problem with that - but at least stick to topic and once you make a point, don't repeat the same point and then resort to childish smart@ass remarks.

Oh, my initial post was certainly on topic, your remarks that "now made more sense" added nothing important than new blames and rants. I am sorry to admit that you dragged me off topic after that. I will part this useless discussion after this post. Count yourself the winner, I don't care. At this point certainly a cent worth, your remark, but not two. But rude? You have yet to catch me to use profanities.

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Now I was talking about how I agree with Yin on his point of view, was there something important you would like to add to that discussion, or just more snide remarks?

Now I was talking about how I disagree with your point of view. I have no need to please somebody with my posts, and I have the same right to express my opinion like you. You expressed your point of view, I disagreed. "Yea" sayer vs. "Nay" sayer, Yin vs. Yang (no offense, Yin ). There was no need for you to disagree that I disagree. So who wrote the snide remarks?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Why does everyone feel that they look more 'right' or appear more 'intelligent' if they quote philosophy or literature?

you gave your... opinion on the definition of a word. in reply i quoted three dictionaries. nothing to do with philosophy....

So everyone that complains, or gripes about a mishap or a disapointment is a 'whiner'.

please re-read the post. keywords: habitually, excessive, childish

Nice logic.

it's not logic, it's a simple reference...

[Ming]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
No, that's not what you said though - you said that the company in question (Firaxis) would take offense to our criticism and insults. And during you're flaming war with Yin you claimed that insulting Firaxis would (basically in different wording) become somehow hurt or rejected by those offensive remarks.

You are incorrect... I have stated that they will ignore people who are insulting them (for good reason), and that to do so is a immature way to complain to them...

[Velociryx]

Didn't say anything about buying a video game being personal, but your comment was to make a distinction between business and personal.

Business is NOT about makin' money....no matter what they teach in school, it just isn't so.

The heart and soul of every well run business I've ever been a part of was about real, personal relationships with people....customers.

Do that, provide a quality product, and the money will follow by extension.

Your comment before seemed to draw a line between the two: "It's business...deal with it."

My contention is that any business operating that cavalierly will soon find itself out of business in the worst case, and in the best case, they'll wind up alienating an increasing segment of their customer base.

-=Vel=-

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The heart and soul of every well run business I've ever been a part of was about real, personal relationships with people....customers.-=Vel=-

I have a personal relationship with Bill Gates. Everytime my computer crashes I talk to him in a very loud voice.

Meanwhile, I think I'll go to the fridge and work on my personal relationship with Anheuser-Busch.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Didn't say anything about buying a video game being personal, but your comment was to make a distinction between business and personal.

While you didn't directly say it... your "relationship" with the company is just that... you bought a a video game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Business is NOT about makin' money....no matter what they teach in school, it just isn't so.

I have to disagree... Business is about making money. People start "businesses" with the intent to make money. Organizations with no intent to make money are "not for profit"... hobbies... professional associations...
And in this specific case... Firaxis and their publisher are in business to MAKE money. They are not in business just to provide the best possible game. That may be an objective to make money... but their goal is to make money in the process.

The heart and soul of every well run business I've ever been a part of was about real, personal relationships with people....customers.

Again... that might me an objective, or a method to make more money... but that is not the primary goal of that company. They are in business to make money, pure and simple.
Now, in the service industry... relationship building is an important element for making money. When you are selling a "service", and not a product, service is the key. But again, sevice is just a tool for obtaining profits.

My contention is that any business operating that cavalierly will soon find itself out of business in the worst case, and in the best case, they'll wind up alienating an increasing segment of their customer base.

I can't argue that point... because there is truth in what you say.
Yet on the other hand... a company that provides the best service in the world, but doesn't make a profit, will go out of business.

Again... your relationship with Firaxis is very simple. You bought a video game. It was a business transaction. They made money, and you got a piece of software. There is absolutely nothing personal about it.

[Tarquelne]

CharlesUF. wrote:

"I made a few adjustments in bold text, and now it makes more sense. Anything asside from that is only you're opinion and I'm not here to argue over opinion, nor do I care."

I wanted to jump in ... but I was having a terrible time trying to reign in my propensity toward sarcasm and just argue in a straightforward manner. Respond almost line-by-line, or just pick out what I thought were the worst statements and concentrate on those? As I was looking over past messages I decided that the above quote was by _far_ the most important. Lets look at it, shall we?

"I made a few adjustments in bold text, and now it makes more sense."

CUF had put forth his interpretation of what had happened with Civ3, Firaxis, and "the Community. Sir Ralph responded with his interpretation, an alternate interpretation. CUF responded by offering his re-interpretation of SR's. Note that CUF states that his new interp. "makes more sense." This is the whole of his "argument" against SR's interpretation.

"Anything asside from that is only you're opinion..."

I'm not certain if CUF is deningrating SR's opinion ("ONLY YOUR opinion") or making a distinction - that his (CUF's) words are fact, and that SR's are "only" opinion. I think its the latter, as:

"...and I'm not here to argue over opinion..."

So I think that CUF's position is that what _he_ writes is hard FACT, and what those who he disagrees with write is opinion.

This, of course, is _not_ an indication that CUF is here to argue in good faith. No, instead it's a nice little immunization strategy that allows him to simply and quickly discard _anything_ written that he doesn't like.
But it gets better! The statement ended with:

"... nor do I care."

What's that? Doesn't care about what? About what he calls opinion? What SR writes? Or the whole thing? Whatever interpretation we give to the statement, it leads, again, to the belief that CUF isn't here to argue. Instead, he seems to be here to make pronouncments. They may be put forth in the form of argument, but there is _no possibility_ that _anything_ written will change is mind.

Thus, I think a sarcastic, or even abusive, response is actually appropriate!

Lets talk about CUF's psychology, OK?

CUF wrote:

"But you're important commentary turned out to be meaningless childish slanderous rant. In other words, you offered nothing to that debate, and you're only intention (from what I could see) was to get my attention so that you could feel like you're apart of the group."

Is everyone familiar with the concept of "Projection?" That people tend to project onto others thier own thoughts and traits? I think it's a very powerfull, very usefull concept. Please, everyone, look at Sir Ralph's post. I submit that it was far from a "childish slanderous rant." I submit, in fact, that they _only_ reason someone would interpret it as such is because of projection. I believe this, when combined with use of the word "meaningless", indicates that CUF is a childish person, who's here mainly seeking... probably not so much attention, but rather a validation of his own thougts via what I call the "spew" method. He "spews" his, ah, "opinions" into the forum and so feels empowered. All he needs is to feel that one other poster agrees with him to seperate the world into two halves: First, the intelligent, reasonable people who can see the world clearly - who agree with him. The other half contains the childish, the dim, and those who are attempting to ingratiate themselves with Firaxis for no well defined reason.

"Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995
A person who habitually complains or grumbles

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
a person given to excessive complaints and crying

Why does everyone feel that they look more 'right' or appear more 'intelligent' if they quote philosophy or literature?"

There's a debate about whether "whiner" can be justifiably attributed to certain persons... someone points out the definition of the word in an attempt to demonstrate a "match" between "whiner" and the behavior of some posters... OK?

CUF's response to this simple argument is, bizzarly, that the poster was trying to simply hype his ego/appearance by appealing to philosophy or "literature."

I'm not sure what the proper interpretation is here. Is CUF such a dim-bunny that he considers Roget's New Thesarus "literature", or that knowing the meaning of words is some high-falut'n philosophical sophistry?
Or is it that he commonly feels inadequate compared to those who know something of philosophy or literature? So threatend by such people that even simply looking up something in a dictionary "pressed his buttons" and broght forth those feelings of inadequacy?

Or is it just that his opponent's argument was a good one, and the only way he could think of to discard it was to characterize it as merely and _only_ a self-aggrendazing act on the part of his opponent? Note, here, that I say "discard" the argument, not "counter" it. My little quote of the day is "Never attribute to malice what can equally well be attributed to stupdity."

I don't think it likely that CUF thought to himself "Hmm, that appeal to the dictionary was well done - my opponent now merely needs to demonstrate that some of the critics of Civ3 have been childish, excessive or _habitual_ complainers to make a strong argument vis a vis their whininess. I shall attempt to distract him with an ad hominem attack." No, I think that CUF's twisted brain squirmed around some in it's squishy cage, and the thought "He's just one of those book freaks." (or somesuch) allowed him to forget about/ignore the argument.



You know, there are _two_ Civ3 games. One on CD and hard drive, the other is web-based...

[Velociryx]

Ming....it's not that I disagree with you...just that our personal experiences have been qualitatively different.

I just formed my own company....Velocigames.

I didn't form it to make a profit.

You might find that humorous or bad business, but you wanna know why I formed it?

I formed it cos I love makin' games, and there's nobody on the market makin' my kinna games.

Now....makin' games is all well and good, but if nobody plays them, then what value is there to the game? Very little, I would say....so, I need to get people pumped up about playing the game.

To that end, we're working on concept art, sketches, and stuff that'll all be a part of the company website when such a creature exists (right now, it's in the planning stages, but nothing's up yet....nonetheless, if you're curious about some of the stuff I've done, I've got one that's worth looking at....a scene sketch of what one of the provinces looks like)

http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/hartpence/mhaven.html

Again, I must stress the point....I'm NOT doing it for the money.

I think though, than in the end, the money will be there.

Bad business?

I think not.

By putting our fans first, even before they exist....by focusing on creating a quality product....the money part will fall into place.

When it's about the money, you get product rushed out the door before it's ready just so you can sell it during the Christmas season.

When it's about the people who BUY the game, you get magic.



-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Velociryx
I am aware of your latest venture... and I can only say one thing...


And I do believe you when you say you aren't in it for the money. And I do wish you the best of luck.

However, I have to be realistic here. If you don't make money, or should I say... IF YOU LOSE money. How long will you be in business. What's the figure for the point of no return. Sure, if it only cost you a couple of thousand dollars to continue, fine.
But what if in the long run, we start talking about losing 10 thousand... 100 thousand... a million dollars. Will you still be in business?

I'm glad you think that in the long run, your efforts will be rewarded with profits. But if you can't show profits, or the ability to generate profits... investors will not invest... and the people involved will not be willing to continue losing money. It might continue as a "hobby"... but it won't be a "business".

I've been involved in such ventures myself. And when it comes down to hitting up the all involved groups for more money to continue... and it happens OVER AND OVER again... and people have to start making hard decisions on whether it is all worth it...

So again... my intent isn't to wish you bad luck or make a prediction that you will fail. I'm just pointing out reality.

The purpose of a business is to make money... or, at least not lose money. In this case... Firaxis is in it for the money. It's that simple. Yes, they are probably proud of what they produce... and have a heavy investment in it... but at the end of the day, profits will be the deciding factor in any decision they make. And there is nothing wrong with that. They are a business!

[Harovan]

Vel, while appreciating your Candle'bre efford, I have to ask: Is it really a company (a business) what you formed, or is it rather a club of enthusiasts?

[Velociryx]

Hey man, and thanks! We're flying in the face of conventional wisdom, that's for sure!

Oh, I'll not deny that maintaining profitability is a key, important factor in keeping the business going. No doubt or denying it. However, in my mind, it's a matter of those priorities you mentioned earlier.

Customers....fans....supporters of the industry....they're pretty smart folks, and can readily sniff out when somebody is taking them for a ride and when someone really, truly cares what they think, want, and feel.

Because of that, my first priority is to make friends of the fans of whatever software we create. And because we're friends, I'm not gonna allow the company to produce anything but the best, cos that's what friends do.

So....if we miss the Christmas selling season then....we miss it.

But when it hits the shelf, it'll be good, and it'll be ready, and our fans will appreciate that fact, I think (they sure seem to over at Blizzard, for example).

And on the other side of the coin, we'll ask our friends and fans to keep us in business (ie - buy the software) so we can do it again....(eventually - our initial releases will be free so everybody can see what we're doing and where we're going with it....also gives everybody a chance to voice their opinion on the shape of things for the commercial release).

If we do it well and do it right, enough people will appreciate what we're doing that we'll stay afloat. If not....well, then we don't need to be doing it anyway.

In the end, yes, profit is a motive (the means of continuing to operate the business), but not THE motive. I believe that if you ask most people who start up companies, you'll not get "money" as the primary answer.

It's about the passion.

Lose that....boil it down to the lowest common denominator (the money), and you lose the magic you started with, and IMO, companies venture down that road at their peril.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Sir Ralph! Right now, it's more like a club, but we're organizing along business lines, cos in a matter of weeks (or less?) we'll be able to add "Inc." behind the name....so, yes....we started as a "club" of enthusiastic people, became a team somewhere along the way, and are heading straight for incorporation... Stay tuned....Much Magic Ahead

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by marc420
Since Firaxis doesn't show any sign of fixing their patch (2 months and counting), I guess I'll just move further back and go back to playing SMAC. Maybe go search the internet for what Brian Reynolds is planning these days.

As a matter of fact, you'll find he's doing the same thing that Firaxis is. He's not saying anything about what he's up to. Surprise, surprise!

[Ming]

Again... best of luck! Being a hard core gamer, I look forward to seeing if you can make it work, and I can't wait to play what you develop. While you game plan sounds solid... you know the old saying... "The battle plan becomes obsolete the second the battle begins"...

Originally posted by Velociryx
In the end, yes, profit is a motive (the means of continuing to operate the business), but not THE motive. I believe that if you ask most people who start up companies, you'll not get "money" as the primary answer.

It's about the passion.

Yes... passion is important. It motivates people to do their very best... and make the needed sacrifices. And sure, when it comes to most private companies, money may not be the first answer...
But, if you ask them "will you still stay in business if you lose money?"... and their answer will be no.

When it comes to public companies... the primary answer will be MAKE MONEY in 100% of the cases... because that's what they are in business for.

So please don't take this as a presonal attack... I only speak the truth as I know it from my many, many, many years in the business world. And I stand by comment that Business is NOT personal.

[Steve Clark]

Vel,

It will become "bad business" if you decide to apply for a loan, acquire VC money or enter into a contractual distribution arrangement. It is perfectly fine to enter into this with a mindset of it being a hobby but the minute you seek outside money for whatever reason, it ceases to be a hobby (unless you have a rich uncle ). Another thought, what will happen when a member of your team decides to take your idea and go off on his/her own and the market it for real money? You may "trust" everyone now, but there have been many, many cases of this happening when someone decides money can be made or gets tired of it being a hobby (and wants real compensation). Unless you have a signed agreement in place or even a NDA, you are setting yourself up for huge risk with your company. Just some Monday morning ramblings.

Regarding the topic of the thread, I still believe it comes down to expectations of the business/customer relationship and how one's personality responds to that relationship. I have been taught to treat everyone (in business) with respect and professional courtesy, regardless of how I feel about the product. The minute that I stop being courteous (esp. in voicing a complain), then I have violated that relationship, again, regardless of how I feel about the product. I don't believe the customer is always right because I have been a customer and I have been wrong about a product before. As long as you (as the customer) is not forced to contractually acquire a product, then it becomes a matter of choice or free will.

Protesting loudly only causes bad press but it is not constructive for making things better. It is the perception that some here only wants to cause bad press (mainly to act out a revenge or to counteract the good press). That is one of the key areas of conflict in this debate.

[ShuShu]

I am not sure anyone else noticed, but Tarquelene threatened to stop being sarcastic in his last thread. This would be a serious loss to the community as most of us on the non-whiner side of the fence can attest...

I had thought i had noticed a toning down. I was afraid Yin had gotten to him as some kind of CIVII conspiracy.

Gentlemen, it is clear that our brother needs us.

free Tarquelen's sarcasm, free Tarquelene's sarcasm, free Tarquelene's sarcasm...



PS. As I am sure some are not sure whether I am pro/con Tarquelene, I must point out that just as with the CD version of CivIII, I enjoy playing this web based version as a builder.

[Velociryx]

Howdies Ming! And as a gamer of any stripe, you're welcome to drop by our Candle'Bre chats any ol' time you wanna! We're starting to pick up more and more folks who just wanna come by and watch the show....see it come together. Of course, we've had two people start out like that (just observing) and later sign on with us...lol....it seems...."catching." Anyway, we LOVE kickin' ideas around, so your insights and opinions would be more than welcome! (And besides, our early releases won't be public anyways, so if you're looking to REALLY zero in on the development of this puppy, start hanging out and get in on some of the EARLY MP action!)

And not to worry....I didn't take your last post as a personal attack....we're just looking at two very different creatures that are doing the same kinds of things.

You're quite right...publically held companies DO have a different set of directives....different set of priorities. It was my understanding though, that Firaxis was still a private company, ownership held by Mier, and a handfull of others....thus, at least when they started out, it could probably fairly be said that it was more about the passion than the money.

In my mind, Firaxis almost looks like a classic case of a company that lost its passion-oriented roots....and lost its way because of it.

I've worked for both ends of the spectrum. Big monolithic companies, and little startups where they pay you half in cash and half in stock, and you hope like hell the stock is actually worth something someday.

Big monolithic companies don't need customer service for the most part, cos either the market they're in is so large, or the product they sell so pivotal, that it doesn't matter if they jerk you around (perfect example: The power company...those guys REEK at customer service, but why should they care? They've got a captive audience, and they know it!)

Firaxis though, is neither publically held (to my knowledge), nor an industry giant....so for them, it is about the magic (and service!), or should be.

In my mind....for Velocigames....here's how I sort it all out.

The company was formed out of a passion for games. My first preference would be to not work at all and lay around in a hammock all day, but since that won't feed either me or my cats, I might as well do something I enjoy.

Of course, there IS the notion of feeding the cats, and so money does creep into the equation.

No problem though...since it's about the passion and the fans before the money, we're guaranteed to produce a product the fans like (not guaranteed as in...it'll be easy, but our passion for doing so makes it all but a foregone conclusion...and with communication going on nonstop, fans will have a real connection to the games we make....they'll find bits of themselves in it...and I mean that literally! We've got some provinces named after some of the people helping us, and there'll be more of that kinna thing woven into the very fabric of the game). If making money was the primary goal, then we'd be all about maximizing our profit...squeezing out every dime from our fans that we could get away with....but that's not what we're all about....we only NEED to make enough to keep on makin' games. If we make more, then we sock it away for lean times when we make less....no biggie...we'll just be a giant corporate squirrel...lol



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Hiya Steve! Not to worry....we've got our ducks in a row regarding rights and stuff....tol' ya...we might LOOK like a bunch of hobbyists right now, but we're making very definite moves toward incorporation....and, partly because of our VERY ummm...."unusual" way of thinking and organizing, we actually have already sparked some interesting discussion with some folks who have money to invest. Can't say more about that at present (both cos it's ongoing and cos I don't wanna jinx myself), but they like our plan....wanna see if we have the stick-with-it-ness to crank out a prototype and see what we can do....but the interest is there.

My opinion is: Anytime it becomes "just" about the money, it's probably time to fold up shop and do something else.

Especially in the entertainment industry....

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

This is a very good discussion between Ming and Vel. I have had the opportunity to observe a number of businesses evolve. In the course of business, managers bump up against this issue daily. How much time (read money as time as time is money) can we devote to customer service? How much can we pay our employees? What benefits can we afford? How much can we spend on marketing?

Where can we take short cuts in the production of our products? This is always important and it is a matter of judgment. Someone has to make a decision of where lie the boundaries of minimum acceptable quality and the realm of diminishing returns.

It is all a delicate balancing act.

Now Vel can afford to aim high while developing a shareware product. Once that product goes on sale and is successful enough to transform Velocigames into a real company then the fun begins.

My complaint with Civ3 is the blatant way that the Civ brand name is being used. Sid has made it clear that he won't work on sequels. Fine. Luckily, Sid had Brian Reynolds to do Civ2 and things worked out fine for that release. Brian then did SMAC, which was an excellent game but did not sell well enough to be a mega hit.

Brian and his group was in the process of developing Civ3 when he and a group of others left. This is where the problem occurred. Had Brian stayed it is almost certain that Civ3 would be more to the taste of the Civ community.

In that time just before and after Brian left there were some important decisions to be made. Things that could have happened but did not:

1. Brian could have stayed and finished the project. He could have felt that he needed to honor the commitment he made to do Civ3. For reasons unknown to me he did not feel that way or was unable to stay.
2. Sid could have done whatever it took to keep Brian, if only for the completion of Civ3. I do not know if he tried, or if he tried to keep some of the others that left with Brian.
3. Sid could have tried to arrange to subcontract the development of Civ3 to Brian's new company. No dice.
4. Sid could have tried to shove whatever he was working on to the back burner and jumped on Civ3 with both feet. No dice here either.
5. Sid could have tried to get the Infrogames to accept a delayed release so that Firaxis would have had time to recover from the bind they were in. This did not happen.

What did happen is that Sid assigned the project to a group that do not have the credentials or experience that Sid and Brian have. "Take this project and run with it, and by the way, you have only a fraction of a normal development cycle to work with." Sid may have spent some time in an oversight role, which may have been helpful but just as easily could have been harmful.

And so, as a result of these decisions, the game was release without adequate development or testing.

It is probably too harsh to criticize the guys who designed the game for they were put in a no win situation. They probably did as well as could be expected. If you are going to laid the blame for this, based on the information we have at hand, blame Sid. Perhaps he was saddled with some contract obligations that he couldn't shove out of the way. Barring this, of which there is no evidence, it seems clear that he, Sid Meier, is the Caesar that fiddled while Civ burned. And I suspect he is glad to see it, as he has in the past made it clear that he wants nothing to do with trying to top himself. His fear of failure doomed the future of the Civ line almost from the beginning of its rise to glory.

So, you see, business decisions are made for peculiar and queer reasons. Just another wildcard to toss in to the equation of money versus service and quality.

Vel, given the slight and remote possibility that you might be the next Sid Meier, how would your decisions have differed from Sid's? Would you have the balls to do a sequel to a hit and risk failure?

Or, as Sid has done, run and hide, make another game (simgolf) that will be fairly sucessful, cash the checks and rid yourself of the Civ albatross forever.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhhh....::shivers:: JT...those are some mighty big shoes! LOL...not sure if I even wanna contemplate what you just said, but thank you....even prefaced by the words "slim" and "remote" that was a pretty amazing statement...

As to the decisions made, and how mine would be different: First, I'm all for sequels. In my mind, there IS no inherent risk in doing a sequel for a game with the fanbase the size of Civ. The community is vibrant and full of energy and creativity. All you have to do to make a sequel hit is to plug into that energy and go where it leads you. Everything....every single new feature in Civ3 was discussed at some point or another by fans right here on poly ("man, wouldn't it be cool if..."). As to implementation...well, that's another discussion...But yes....that's the first difference. Personal involvement IN the sequel.

And because of the first decision difference early on, the whole rest of the decision tree takes new form. There wouldn't have been a "crunch period" when the co-designer left.



-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
we actually have already sparked some interesting discussion with some folks who have money to invest.

And this is when the "danger" really begins. The minute "outsiders" money is brought into play... the rules change.
I hope you are checking them out as much as they are checking you out. Unless they too have the "passion"... there will come a time down the road where "return on investment" (nasty, nasty, nasty) becomes an important issue.
I've seen MANY MANY MANY small companies lose control of their product/service to the money people!!!!!!!
I hope you guys don't fall into that trap.

And I will try to stop by and check things out... but as you probably know, my duties here do take up a lot of my free time

[Velociryx]

Yep....the whole thing in the early goings balances on the brink....one wrong move, and it could all come tumbling down or worse, end up in someone else's control.

But...that's what makes it fun! And, I'm thinking that even *if* the worst happens with this project, the ideas (and there are a lot of them) are in my head, and the money men can't reach that. So, even if this particular instance falls apart (but I must say that it's looking like it will not), then I shall simply dust myself off and try again.

The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor....eventually, I will succeed, if for no other reason than the fact that I keep learning from my mistakes and trying again.

As to your visit....yes! And here's to your getting *totally* hooked on our design!

-=Vel=-

[Tarquelne]

"I am not sure anyone else noticed, but Tarquelene threatened to stop being sarcastic in his last thread. This would be a serious loss to the community as most of us on the non-whiner side of the fence can attest..."

Oh, great, that's all I need - encouragement to be sarcastic. Even if it's sarcastic itself

I don't even think I've been very sarcastic here yet, not like I have been recently on USENET. Maybe I'm trying to avoid that horrifying moment when - after a post I thought was so absurd that the sarcasm would be obvious to a third grader - half a dozen (well, maybe 3) people take it seriously and reply accordingly.

"I had thought i had noticed a toning down. I was afraid Yin had gotten to him as some kind of CIVII conspiracy."

Well, I wanted to post something nasty after Yin's last response to me(IIRC), but he was completely civil, reasonable, and effectively made a retraction of the main point I'd objected to. Any arguement would have been quibbling. I think there's plenty of grossly incorrect statements to object to still floating around, and I didn't feel like quibbling.

"Gentlemen, it is clear that our brother needs us.
free Tarquelen's sarcasm, free Tarquelene's sarcasm, free Tarquelene's sarcasm... "

There you go again...

Note that I got what I'd call "abusive" of CUF in my last post. But if you'd rather just have sarcasm, maybe I'll try that.

"PS. As I am sure some are not sure whether I am pro/con Tarquelene, I must point out that just as with the CD version of CivIII, I enjoy playing this web based version as a builder."

Sometimes I sit down to play Civ3 and do find myself "surfing" over to Apolyton instead.


In all seriousness, sometimes I spend far more time playing as a not-completely-objective referree in discussions than directly contributing to them. However, not to long ago I had first-hand experience with how the "grossly incrorrect" claims of one side in a debate can sort of permeate discussion and maKe getting to the truth almost completely impossible. (It was a discussion, in fact, that centered on the customer service record of a software company, and the buggy-ness of its software. After a pretty thourough deja-search, however, I determined that there were less than a dozen posters who had a bad experience with the company. But there were 4 who posted so persistently, and were so vehement, that they were actually beginning to sway almost all the newsgroup's perception of the company - including mine. (I was moved to perform the search after I found myself agreeing with one of the posters, one that I thought was a complete jerk.) I think if we consistently attack the most unreasonable arguments we will, hopefully, be left with only the reasonable arguments. To tell the truth, I believe you could replace "arugments" with "posters" in that sentence, too.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by TechWins
There might not be the need for SLIC by that time.

That I don't believe. SLIC is neede for modders and scenario makers even if the game itself is perfectly balanced.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

A worthy successor to Civ2? Maybe
A worthy succesor to Civ2 and CtP2? Never.

Why should Civ3 be a worthy successor to CtP2? The CtP series is not part of the Sid Meier's Civilization series. There is no relationship whatsoever between CtP and Civ except to the extent that CtP1 copied "the look & feel" of Civ and used legal shennanigans to get away with putying the word "Civilization" in the title in order to create the false impression of a relationship. The CtP series was done by different people working for a different company and with no access to Civ1/Civ2 source code. It is no more appropriate to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to CtP2 than it would be to discuss Civ3 as a worthy successor to Imperialism II.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Terribly sorry for interrupting you, Charley, but this is an open discussion board. If you don't wish your posts commented, you are free to communicate via PM. Everybody except the thread starter at some point "jumped in". And in my "meaningless childish slanderous rant" I just tried to show, that there are possible other points of view. You tried to blame Firaxis for all what is going on here (oh Sancta Simplicita), and I tried to find another explanation. I am far from finding their silence good, but at least I can understand it, because the same rule exists at my work. It's obvious that you didn't yet work in a company. Meaningless childish slanderous rant? 0 points for you so far, Charley.

Oh it is true, this is an open discussion board and all are free to jump in at any time. I don't have a problem with people jumping in but rather the manner they do so. And in you're case it was meaningless: I know you like the game, I've heard it from so many others, it's now common, therefor if I know, you repeating it would be meaningless to me. And I found you slanderous: by arming yourself with sarcasm and english gramar - which you intended to offend by. And you're being childishness: stems from you're constant nattering of the same view repeated over say about 4 replies to me, and a nice thick topping of sarcasm again. Any adult would have spoken once, and then walked away - but you couldn't resist on being more of a smart@ss just to prove one more critic wrong. I admire you for you're determination, but so far you haven't proven or said anything to me that I haven't already heard, seen or acknowledged from other people like you. So if you want my honest opinion, you're only here for one reason to argue in you're spare time because you enjoy getting reactions and feeling like you're a part of something. So far - unsuccesful.

Oh, my initial post was certainly on topic, your remarks that "now made more sense" added nothing important than new blames and rants. I am sorry to admit that you dragged me off topic after that. I will part this useless discussion after this post. Count yourself the winner, I don't care. At this point certainly a cent worth, your remark, but not two. But rude? You have yet to catch me to use profanities.

Sorry, but I found you're commentary and you're views way off topic in one strand or another. And you're rudeness was mainly from you're child-like remarks and you're sarcasm. And IMO there is no winner, I'm not here to compete by little pissing contests and flame wars with people that argue only for the sake of argument. I'm here to debate, yes. But I'm here to debate for a reason. I never accused you of using profanities, and one can acheive rudeness by merely 'passing gas' in the wrong direction but I feel you've surpassed that.

Now I was talking about how I disagree with your point of view. I have no need to please somebody with my posts, and I have the same right to express my opinion like you. You expressed your point of view, I disagreed. "Yea" sayer vs. "Nay" sayer, Yin vs. Yang (no offense, Yin ). There was no need for you to disagree that I disagree. So who wrote the snide remarks?

"Snide' would be the sarcasm and imature remarks - you've done that in not so many words, but you're behaviour and actions in life aren't judged by how they're sent, but how they are recieved. Maybe you should look where you step, before you step next time. And yeah this is a classic case of "yay" vs "nay" which is why I disagreed with you're disagreement. But you mistook me with someone who actually cares. That was the first problem, the second problem is you continued to 'natter' at me with you're views, and I told you (in not so many words) that I don't care about you're view and that our argument was null and meaningless - and at that point I was hoping for a glint of maturity to kick in and that you would accept the fact that we don't agree and you would walk away. Besides what kind of person jumps into a post or discussion at half point - and knows that his views are completely against the person(s) in the discussion - but states them anyway?? Sounds like you're trying to stir something up. But I digress, thats only my opinion. And I'm glad that you're putting this to rest. I'm trying a more civilized approach with you in our other discussion in the other thread, I hope that's acceptable for you. See ya around.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Note that I got what I'd call "abusive" of CUF in my last post. But if you'd rather just have sarcasm, maybe I'll try that.

"CUF" Charles U Farley.

I appologize for that, my intentions were never such. But sometimes (I admit) people get me goin' on here and I can't help myself. Maybe I need one of those "AA" thing's "@ssholes Anonymous" or something. But I do sincerely mean it when I say I don't intend on abusing any member of this board, and I retract any doing so with a sincere appology. I thought this was just fun harmless debate with strangers, but I guess some of you take things personally. [...shrug...]

In all seriousness, sometimes I spend far more time playing as a not-completely-objective referree in discussions than directly contributing to them. However, not to long ago I had first-hand experience with how the "grossly incrorrect" claims of one side in a debate can sort of permeate discussion and maKe getting to the truth almost completely impossible. (It was a discussion, in fact, that centered on the customer service record of a software company, and the buggy-ness of its software. After a pretty thourough deja-search, however, I determined that there were less than a dozen posters who had a bad experience with the company. But there were 4 who posted so persistently, and were so vehement, that they were actually beginning to sway almost all the newsgroup's perception of the company - including mine. (I was moved to perform the search after I found myself agreeing with one of the posters, one that I thought was a complete jerk.) I think if we consistently attack the most unreasonable arguments we will, hopefully, be left with only the reasonable arguments. To tell the truth, I believe you could replace "arugments" with "posters" in that sentence, too.

I agree with you, there isn't too many 'hardcore critics' on this board or any other boards - believe me, I've looked for more people to relate too. But the logical and common sense of it is, how do we really know those kind of statistics, I mean out of 4-6 million consumers there is bound to be a good percentage of critics or disapointment, wouldn't you agree Tarq?

Charles.